2008-04-07_Bill_270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i Honorable Pudding L-assiter and Members of the Hawaii Police Commission May 17, 2006 Page 3 • The inability to administer Garrity' rights to the police officer. • Waiting until the next Commission meeting to review the complaint and determine whether further investigation is necessary. • Lack of subpoena power. • Investigatory limitations of available private investigation service providers in our community. No doubt the most thorough investigation may be conducted by HPD, as they do not face the limitations discussed above. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Commission may wish to consider the following: 1. All complaints, whether made to the Commission or HPD, should be referred to and investigated by HPD Internal Affairs (hereinafter 1K). 2. The completed findings (and not the entire report) of IA for every case should be forwarded to the Commission for their review. This will satisfy the "receive, consider and investigate" requirement of the Charter. The Commission may review these findings at our monthly meeting, and if discussion is warranted, may go into executive (closed) session to discuss the particulars with IA personnel. 3. Complainants may be notified of the date and time of this Commission review, so they may appear to offer testimony, if they so choose. This is a very important part of the process. This will allow the complainants face-to-face contact with the Commission to "have their day in court." This unique aspect of our Hawaii County Commission should be retained.° 4. Assuming the Commission have concerns regarding the IA investigation after hearing from the complainant, the Commission may request a review of the entire IA file as part of the Commission's oversight function. The Commission may then make recommendations to the Chief if necessary, or report back to the complainant that the case was properly investigated. The above process, if adopted, would not require an amendment of present Commission rules. The process would also allow the Commission to fulfill its oversight responsibility, (1)without the risk of jeopardizing a case by conducting a concurrent investigation with IA, and (2) without interfering with the 3 Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S.493,87 S.Ct. 616 (N.J. 1967). °At the 2006 State of Hawaii Police Commissioners'Training Conference, it was discovered the Hawaii Police Commission was the only board in the State that routinely facilitated a process where complainants were encouraged to provide oral testimony on their own behalf at a meeting of the Commission.